182 Open Daily games
1 Open Realtime game
    Pages:   1   (1 in total)
  1. #1 / 7
    Standard Member redshift
    Rank
    Major
    Rank Posn
    #134
    Join Date
    Dec 16
    Location
    Posts
    287

    I've added the following tutorial to the Advanced Factories section of the Wiki:

    http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_tutorials:tutorials:factories:starting_bonus_schematics

    Feel free to share more ideas. Devising a scheme for half-increment or any other non-integer increment has eluded me so far. Ideally, one would want to know how to mix non-integer with integer increments in the same scheme. By half-increment, I mean same bonus for two consecutive seats, just like with the cards.

     

    One thing I haven't mentioned yet, is with how many units the territories should/can be loaded with, because I am not sure what happens if they're loaded with 0 units and Abandonment is ON and Neutral Reversion is set to Immediately or to EOT (in the board I'm making I have it set to Never). I know that with Abandonment OFF they do not revert to Neutral because I have played the first two scenarios of Risk of Thrones and players start the game with some 0 unit territories and they do not revert to Neutral even though that setting is on Immediately.

    Basically, the question is, with Abandonment ON, if the game engines simply reverts to neutral upon verifying 0 units in the territory or if it compares to the previous state before doing so, that is, if previous state was also 0 units, then it is not considered abandonment and the territory does not revert to neutral.

    Edited Wed 29th Mar 01:14 [history]

  2. #2 / 7
    Standard Member redshift
    Rank
    Major
    Rank Posn
    #134
    Join Date
    Dec 16
    Location
    Posts
    287

    Ok, I have tested the neutral reversion thing and as long as the territory stays allways at 0, it does not revert to neutral, regardless of the settings.

    Added a clarification between game seat and setup seat at the start of the tutorial.

     

     


  3. #3 / 7
    Standard Member redshift
    Rank
    Major
    Rank Posn
    #134
    Join Date
    Dec 16
    Location
    Posts
    287

    Added a way to make the total bonus independent of the ratio between the numbers of players in a game and the maximum number of players allowed by the board, in the integer increment schemes.


  4. #4 / 7
    Standard Member Korrun
    Rank
    Brigadier General
    Rank Posn
    #74
    Join Date
    Nov 12
    Location
    Posts
    842

    Nice work.


  5. #5 / 7
    Shelley, not Moore Ozyman
    Rank
    Brigadier General
    Rank Posn
    #40
    Join Date
    Nov 09
    Location
    Posts
    3448

    Wow! That's really cool.  I honestly haven't taken the time to digest it all yet, but I will at some point & it looks really well thought out.  Exactly the sort of stuff we need more of on the wiki.

    Thank you redshift for putting this page together. 


  6. #6 / 7
    Standard Member redshift
    Rank
    Major
    Rank Posn
    #134
    Join Date
    Dec 16
    Location
    Posts
    287

    redshift wrote:

    Added a way to make the total bonus independent of the ratio between the numbers of players in a game and the maximum number of players allowed by the board, in the integer increment schemes.

    I wasn't taking into account that the bonus described in this section would come bit by bit as the turn passed from one player to the other.

    The new solution I present should work. Will have results soon since I'm testing this scheme on the board I'm making. The incremental part I can already say that is working properly.

     

    Thanks for the kind words. Smile


  7. #7 / 7
    Standard Member redshift
    Rank
    Major
    Rank Posn
    #134
    Join Date
    Dec 16
    Location
    Posts
    287

    Eliminated a redudancy in the integer increment schematics, where the AutoNeutral factories from the first row targeted the territories from the main diagonal. In the 1st variation of the scheme, these territories do not even need to exist but I left them there nonetheless. I do mention that aspect in the text, though.

    Also corrected the solution presented in the last section as it was not completely correct.

    Edited Tue 11th Apr 19:15 [history]

You need to log in to reply to this thread   Login | Join
 
Pages:   1   (1 in total)